Would a Hillary Indictment Be a Gift for Both Parties?

Would a Hillary Indictment Be a Gift for Both Parties?  If you listen to the political pundits, the average opinion would seem to put a possible Hillary Clinton indictment over her email and Clinton Foundation issues at around 40-50 percent.  How much of that is Republican wishful thinking is anyone’s guess.  It would certainly seem like a stretch to imagine that in today’s politically-charged WDC environment and given their lame duck status, Obama appointee and FBI Director Comey would recommend an indictment to Obama appointee and Attorney General Lynch and that she would then proceed to instruct the DOJ to pursue an indictment against Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for President.  However, as the leaks from the cases progress from a drip to a steady stream, the independence cred of Comey continues to come under scrutiny, and the intrigue between Obama and the Clintons continues to marinate, the possibility of an indictment cannot be easily dismissed.  Many Republican stalwarts and leaders are licking their chops in anticipation of the possible indictment; dreaming of running against a 74 year old socialist in 2016.  Many Democrats are similarly in angst, fretting that their already flawed candidate may be mortally wounded by her legal baggage.  I will now submit for your consideration that a Hillary Clinton indictment might very well prove to be a gift to both parties.  Let me explain.

The past several presidential elections have clearly demonstrated to me that I am beyond useless when it comes to predicting election outcomes; that being so, I still have a very difficult time envisioning Hillary Clinton winning a national election for President.  I do not believe that the minority vote, mainly Black and Hispanic, will fall into lockstep support for Clinton.  There is no way that she appeals to Black Americans as has Obama and there is a decent chance that the ultimate Republican nominee will garner at least a respectable percentage of the Hispanic vote, immigration issues notwithstanding.  Hillary is a terrible candidate and carries more baggage than Kiss did on their world tours.  The most damning tell to me is the consistent polling that indicates between 50 and 60 percent of the electorate do not see her as honest and trustworthy; hard to pull the lever for that kind of President. I had previously thought that the only way Hillary might win in 2016 was if the Republicans nominated Trump.  I still do not believe he will win the nomination, but I now believe that even he, blustering buffoon that he is, would defeat Hillary in 2016.  Most staunch Republicans are so consumed with their Clinton animus that they are openly cheering for an indictment without looking past the event itself.

These must be truly miserable days for pragmatic and long-time Democrats.  As chaotic as the Republican nominee debates have been, the Democratic debates have been equally lethargic.  With a choice of Hillary or Bernie, the obvious selection has always been, and continues to be, Hillary.  However, even the most faithful Democrat must be slowly realizing that Hillary is very damaged goods and is ever so painfully being exposed as the ruthless, unconscionable, greedy politician that she is.  For all of the excitement and enthusiasm that Sanders has generated on the campaign trail, it is beyond doubt that he will ultimately prove to be little  more than a uber-liberal distraction leading up to the main event. 

If indeed Hillary Clinton is indicted, what will the Democratic Party do?  Does anyone really believe they will go into the 2016 general election cycle with a 74 year old socialist at the head of their ticket?  Is it even conceivable that they would advance a candidate that is under federal indictment?  There is an old saying that the golden rule means that them that have the gold makes the rules; this is never truer than in politics.  If Hillary is viewed as mortally wounded by an indictment (which you would have to assume to be the case), then what would the Democrats do?  Is it not reasonable to expect them to change the rules as needed to make certain a candidate they viewed as more viable than Bernie represents their party in 2016?  And would it not also be logical to assume that the primary individual for this selection would be Vice-President Joe Biden?  And if Biden were to be the immaculate candidate for the Democrats in 2016, who better to serve as his Vice-Presidential candidate than Elizabeth Warren?

Although the 2016 Presidential election will be decided by Independents and moderate Democrats, there can be little doubt that the leadership and financial sponsors of the Democratic Party have shifted far leftward; not all the way out  to the Bernie Sanders end of the spectrum, but a whole lot past the centerline.  Warren is clearly ambitious and Warren is clearly the darling of many in the liberal zone of the Democratic Party.  She would not only suit the sponsors and the party leaders, but she would also be a sop to the obviously-upset Sanders supporters.  A Biden one-term pledge would provide additional incentive for Warren’s late entry.  Given what we know about the political landscape today, it is not outrageous to say that a Biden-Warren presidential ticket would be much stronger than a Clinton-??? presidential ticket.   That ticket would certainly be more appealing to the new liberal segment of the party that seems to be in full possession of enthusiasm and excitement at this time.

I have said all along that the Republican leadership should stay the hell out of the primary process and let the party members select their candidate.  Be it Trump, be it Cruz, or be it Rubio….let the process play out.    Democrats might well take the same advice regarding Hillary’s legal issues.  If in fact she ends up being indicted, the Democratic Party might very well be in better shape to compete with an alternate candidate in 2016.

Follow new posting announcements on Twitter at "centerlineright".